The other day Simon Cowell apparently attacked an interpretation of "The Summer Wind" on American Idol for being like something you'd hear in a jazz club. Jazz is aparently now a bad thing, at least according to Simon Cowell.
I should admit I know next to nothing about Simon Cowell. I once saw his face reacting to Susan Boyle because a friend sent me the link. That is my entire exposure to the guy. The whole thing struck me as terribly contrived and it looked like a set up from the start. But he obviously knows something about public taste.
The question is how did we get to the point that vulgar jerks like Cowell can dismiss this music?
Well, I can think of a number of reasons.
1. The Great Books approach
This approach says that if you decide to "educate" yourself about jazz you must read a book or watch a documentary that takes you through a bunch of the history you have to know about to understand jazz. If you have ever taken a great books course, you will know that you don't actually read or have read any of the great books to pass. You simply listen to the lectures. And that is what happens. People sit through a bunch of chapters or videos about all the greats. What they don't do is develop any love for the music itself.
Having learned enough to take part in cocktail party chatter about jazz, they leave the class and never listen to much jazz.
That's odd because no one I know who loves jazz did it that way. We all found something we liked and listened to it rather than embracing the whole history of jazz. There are certain "greats" I have never listened to much and never will. There are others I gave a try to and still listen every now and then but not a whole lot. There are others I once cared a whole lot about that I know longer listen to much.
2, Charlie Parker and John Coltrane
This is really an extension of the above point. Sign up for a "jazz appreciation" course at college today and some idiot will make you listen to Charlie Parker and John Coltrane. You will be told that this very-hard-to-appreciate music is what it's all about. And, if you are like most people, you will find the experience painful and move on.
Compare this with classical music where the biggest names are people who are actually pretty easy to like. No one makes you sit down and listen to hours of serialism and tells you that is what classical is really about. They give you Mozart instead. No one tells you that you can't really be a classical music fan if you don't just love Wagner.
I sometimes think of this as the Listerine strategy. Listerine was a mouth wash that tasted awful. Years ago, Listerine tried to make a virtue of necessity by arguing that their mouthwash "worked because it tasted awful". Jazz keenheads do the same thing with the music. tell them you don't particularly like the music of Charlie Parker and they will tell you to try harder.
3. It's all about race.
I know this will offend some people but there is nothing more tiresome about books, documentaries and courses on jazz than the constant emphasis on race, race and more race. No one wants to hear yet more pontificating on race. They want to hear music. Shut up and sing or shut up and play.
4. Ethnic ownership
This ethnic ownership theory says that the music rightfully belongs to one group (African Americans) and that anyone else must approach it with reverence and respect and never, ever assume it can be theirs too.
To which the rational response is, "Okay, if this music belongs to you, I'll go do something else then." Millions of Americans started doing just that with the rise of Bop and the decline continues.
I should admit I know next to nothing about Simon Cowell. I once saw his face reacting to Susan Boyle because a friend sent me the link. That is my entire exposure to the guy. The whole thing struck me as terribly contrived and it looked like a set up from the start. But he obviously knows something about public taste.
The question is how did we get to the point that vulgar jerks like Cowell can dismiss this music?
Well, I can think of a number of reasons.
1. The Great Books approach
This approach says that if you decide to "educate" yourself about jazz you must read a book or watch a documentary that takes you through a bunch of the history you have to know about to understand jazz. If you have ever taken a great books course, you will know that you don't actually read or have read any of the great books to pass. You simply listen to the lectures. And that is what happens. People sit through a bunch of chapters or videos about all the greats. What they don't do is develop any love for the music itself.
Having learned enough to take part in cocktail party chatter about jazz, they leave the class and never listen to much jazz.
That's odd because no one I know who loves jazz did it that way. We all found something we liked and listened to it rather than embracing the whole history of jazz. There are certain "greats" I have never listened to much and never will. There are others I gave a try to and still listen every now and then but not a whole lot. There are others I once cared a whole lot about that I know longer listen to much.
2, Charlie Parker and John Coltrane
This is really an extension of the above point. Sign up for a "jazz appreciation" course at college today and some idiot will make you listen to Charlie Parker and John Coltrane. You will be told that this very-hard-to-appreciate music is what it's all about. And, if you are like most people, you will find the experience painful and move on.
Compare this with classical music where the biggest names are people who are actually pretty easy to like. No one makes you sit down and listen to hours of serialism and tells you that is what classical is really about. They give you Mozart instead. No one tells you that you can't really be a classical music fan if you don't just love Wagner.
I sometimes think of this as the Listerine strategy. Listerine was a mouth wash that tasted awful. Years ago, Listerine tried to make a virtue of necessity by arguing that their mouthwash "worked because it tasted awful". Jazz keenheads do the same thing with the music. tell them you don't particularly like the music of Charlie Parker and they will tell you to try harder.
3. It's all about race.
I know this will offend some people but there is nothing more tiresome about books, documentaries and courses on jazz than the constant emphasis on race, race and more race. No one wants to hear yet more pontificating on race. They want to hear music. Shut up and sing or shut up and play.
4. Ethnic ownership
This ethnic ownership theory says that the music rightfully belongs to one group (African Americans) and that anyone else must approach it with reverence and respect and never, ever assume it can be theirs too.
To which the rational response is, "Okay, if this music belongs to you, I'll go do something else then." Millions of Americans started doing just that with the rise of Bop and the decline continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment